Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1887-11-04
VARIOUS MATTERS.

VARIOUS MATTERS.
I"Whips and Tips" in Turf, Field and Farm.
NEW YORK, June 10, 1887.
The first and only defense of the utter
ly erroneous decision of the board of
censors of the n. A. T. II. B., that Col
Wood was by Billy Patterson, is made
by Mr.. Wallace in his June number. He
brings his screed to its lame and impotent
conclusion by abiding to the undersigned
as an indiscreet attorney, language so
mild from him as to approach compli-
ment. As for indscreetness, will take
pleasure in sizing up with him on that
commodity after the present discussion
of his remarks, which is forced upon me,
is finished. In the first place, give him
the benefit of quoting his entire article,
as follows: ever since the board of
censors gave their final decision in the
COL Wood case, declaring that his sire
was Billy Patterson and not Charley b.,
there has been persistent effort to be-
little and break the force of that decision
by disappearing the real point in the
case. 1t is claimed that the book contain
ing the stud services of Charley B. shows
that the dam of Col. Wood was bred to
that horse the year before Col. Wood was
foaled; that the entry of this service is in
ink, and to be found in its natural and
regular place in the book according to
the succession of dates. This is all true.
There is such book, and there is such
an entry in it, but it is made-up book
according to Mr.. Burlew's own statement
when the case was before the board the
first time. We then asked him why he
did not bring the book in which the entry
was originally made, and he replied that
he did not know that it would be needed.
This made-up book was in our personal
possession for some time, and in our best
and most deliberate judgment it was of
no value as evidence. 1t was accepted,
however, by majority of the board of
censors on the first trial of the case, and
on the strength of this book, we think,
our decision was reversed by the board.
When the case was opened up for a re-
hearing, this same book was relied upon
to establish the claim of Charley b. as the
sire of Col. Wood, and that book and that
entry in it must either be accepted as
true, or it must be rejected as fraud.
In the very nature of things, there could
be no halfway acceptance nor halfway
rejection. The real point in the case was
the character of the book which neces-
sarily involved the character of it's maxi
err. With all the members of the board
present, we are glad to say, they decided
unanimously that this made-up book
could not be accepted as evidence, and
that, consequently, Billy Patterson
was the sire of Col. Wood. This decision
extends far beyond the mere question of
which of two horses was the sire of given
colt, for the character and methods of
James b. Burlew were primary factors
in the investigation. That there should
have been any necessity for calling pub
lie attention to the fact that character and
methods were involved in this case, the
gentleman most interested may thank
his very indiscreet attorney"
have given this article entire, because
the other side of the case has been quite
fully presented in these columns and it is
my desire that the readers of the Turf,
Field and Farm should have an opportu-
nifty TO hear the case of the other side.
In my own works, | can never submit
to the erroneous decision of the board of
censors, and represent Col. Wood as bv
Billy Patterson, and my only course is to
appeal from that tribunal to the higher
one of public opinion. Wallaces re-
marks about the stud-book must be taken
as er cathedra. The only inference from
them is, that if the censors had believed
that the entry in Burlew's stud books
was genuine, and made at the time of the
service of Flora Andrews, they would
have decided that Col. Wood was by
Charley b., and that they did not believe
1t was genuine, because, as Wallace allie
ges, there was an earlier stud book of
Charley b. not produced, and the one
exhibited to the censors was "made up."
Assuming this latter clause to represent
the fact, the first pertinent question is,
how did the board of censors know il?
The second hearing was declared to be